Normalizing Hitler
When the abnormal ceases to be.
NYT (“‘Morning Joe’ Stars Reveal a Mar-a-Lago Reunion With Trump“):
The married MSNBC hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough drove half an hour from their Florida home on Friday to meet with an old friend turned frenemy turned enemy: President-elect Donald J. Trump.
Their relationship has been complicated. Mr. Trump was once a regular guest on their talk show, “Morning Joe,” and the couple rang in 2017 at a New Year’s Eve party at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Then things deteriorated. Mr. Trump called Mr. Scarborough a “psycho” and Ms. Brzezinski “crazy,” claiming that he had once seen her “bleeding badly from a face-lift.” “Morning Joe” became a redoubt of the anti-Trump resistance. This year, the couple repeatedly warned that a second Trump presidency would threaten democracy’s future.
Even for talk show hosts, it turns out, elections have consequences.
“For those asking why we would go speak to the president-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, ‘Why wouldn’t we?’” Ms. Brzezinski told viewers on Monday, disclosing the meeting for the first time. “Joe and I realized it’s time to do something different, and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump but also talking with him.”
CNN‘s Brian Stelter (“MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ hosts reveal they met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago ‘to restart communications’“):
The news was so shocking that some “Morning Joe” viewers probably spit out their coffee.
MSNBC co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski “went to Mar-a-Lago to meet personally” with President-elect Donald Trump, Brzezinski revealed at the beginning of Monday’s show. The Friday rendezvous was “the first time we have seen him in seven years,” she added.
[…]
The meeting between Trump and the progressive cable network’s hosts — two of the most avowed anti-Trump hosts on television — immediately raised speculation about a détente with the president-elect and sparked criticism from some “Morning Joe” fans.
Veteran media critic Jeff Jarvis, a loyal “Joe” viewer, said on Threads that the meeting was a “betrayal of their colleagues, democracy, and us all. It is a disgusting show of obeisance in advance.” Others on social media vowed not to watch the show anymore, though it is impossible to measure how widespread that sentiment was.
Scarborough and Brzezinski anticipated the criticism and addressed some of it in Monday morning’s announcement.
“Don’t be mistaken. We are not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump,” Scarborough said. “We are here to report on him and to hopefully provide you insights” for “understanding these deeply unsettling times.”
RedState (“Megyn Kelly Unleashes the Hounds of Hell on Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough“):
Megyn Kelly offered up a simple three-word response to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski visiting Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.
[…]
“I searched for a way to respond appropriately and I called on my 10 years as a litigator, in addition to my now 20 as a journalist, and I think I found the perfect phrase,” Kelly calmly responded. “Go f**k yourselves.”
“G f**ck yourselves, you dishonest jokes of faux journalists,” she added. “What an absurd farce.”
[…]
“How long have they been telling us that he’s (Trump’s) an existential threat, that he’s a Hitleresque figure, that he’s a fascist, that women will die – will die! – if he gets elected?” she seethed. “Well, they’ve done a 180. They’ve done a 180 as their ratings circle the bowl.”
[…]
“They’re grifters,” she said of Scarborough and Brzezinski. “These two, yes, worked day and night to get Trump the nomination back in ’15-’16. They embarrassed themselves and sacrificed any pretense of journalistic ethics in doing it. It was true bootlicking.”
“It is nauseating,” she added. “It’s so stomach-turning. They are so disgusting.”
I was a regular viewer of “Morning Joe” once upon a time, but it has been years. Mostly, my morning routine has just changed, and it’s now rare, indeed, that I turn on a television before 8 pm on a weekday.
While I never thought they were actively working to get Trump elected, Joe and Mika clearly had a personal relationship with him. And they were adamant that those of us dismissing his chances of becoming the 2016 Republican nominee were missing the boat. Eventually, for whatever reason, they soured on him and he, as is his penchant, went after them in the most ugly manner.
That they’ve now gone the way of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, ignoring past humiliations to ingratiate themselves with him, is indeed worthy of ridicule.
If one ignores the personal baggage, though, they have a point. Like it or not—and, I suspect they like it even less than I do—Trump is once again the President-Elect and will once again serve a four-year term as President of the United States. It rather behooves the hosts of a political talk show to have access to him, both to be better-informed commentators and to be able to book him as a guest on their air. It’s not only good for their ratings, it benefits their audience.
Jarvis and Kelly are on both sides of a good point: if one truly believes Trump is a literal fascist and a threat to human rights and the future of American democracy, it is a betrayal of the highest order to kowtow to him.
But what if one merely thinks, as I do, that Trump is morally and temperamentally unfit to the highest office in the world but is nonetheless the legitimate holder of said office? In that case, it seems to me, one in fact normalizes him in the sense of treating him as though he were indeed the President and then holding him to the standards of a normal President.
When he nominates reasonably qualified people to key posts, it seems perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that. In so doing, it makes calling out obviously-unqualified nominees more impactful.
When he proposes perfectly normal policy ideas one happens to disagree with, disagree with them as though they were a normal policy idea proposed by the leader of a legitimate opposition party. And when he opposes policy ideas that violate the Constitution or basic norms of human decency, label them accordingly.
I’ve been rather resolute in defending Republican politicians for aquiescing to the fact that the Republican nominating electorate has repeatedly chosen Trump as the leader of their party. Ditto journalists who treat the Republican frontrunner/nominee/President-Elect/President as though he was those things. The problem comes when they treat truly outrageous behavior as “just politics.”
This may be eye opening to you, but being the legitimate holder of an office doesn’t preclude one from being a literal fascist and a threat to human rights and the future of American democracy.
I don’t know who told you that fascists cannot get legitimately elected, but there is zero reason to believe this.
(Or do you believe that fascists cannot get legitimately elected in America? In which case… wow.)
As if that wasn’t already tried, and then failed miserably?
Gotta admit, I put him more in the top paragraph than the second.
He legitimately won the office, and is constitutionally qualified. Beyond that, his rhetoric is fascistic and he seems to neither understand nor care how the government should work, even within the bounds of honest disagreement about policy.
I don’t watch much cable TV news, and mostly have seen Joe and Mika via clips over the years. But this severely undercuts what respect I had for them.
Although I can’t take Kelly seriously period.
@Mikey: Agreed.
One more thought:
His campaign was constructed of truly outrageous behavior and his nominations to the most important positions are the same.
As such, this move signals that all of the criticism where “just politics” and really didn’t matter. Maybe that was true for Joe and Mika. If that is the case, then they are morally bankrupt.
Spineless Republicans in the United States Congress had a chance to do this when then President Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trials.
Now that Republicans control the Senate and the House of Representatives I have no thought that convicted felon Donald Trump will ever be held “to the standards of a normal President.”
The window is closing…. to get back into the graces of the once and future king.
I read this in the Times yesterday regarding Trump’s plans:
And the team plans to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship.
This is a blatant unconstitutional act. Birthright citizenship is not debatable. Holding back citizenship is what a dictator does. But I’m guessing this type of fascism is going to be fine with respectable moderates who were warning us about Trump and democracy. It’s probably going to be fine with the majority of Americans.
The whole Megan Kelly rant is pure projection. It is her screaming “Look at me!” Yes, every accusation is a confession.
@Modulo Myself: So can we reopen the question whether Ted Cruz is a US Citizen?
I feel like this is a great reminder about how “should we take them literally or figuratively (even when they are saying ‘take me literally’)” question needs to be applied to more than just Trump.
I feel more aligned with both Jarvis and Kelly on this. And thinking about this post has helped me to get to why that is. James, you wrote:
Generally speaking, I agree with this. I have complimented the first Trump administration for things like The First Step Act and Project Lightspeed. Last week I wrote a favorable post about the choice of Todd Blanche for Deputy AG.
That’s a world-apart difference from accepting an invitation to go and spend time with the President-elect. The Scarboros could easily have done what you are suggesting James WITHOUT having to have a face-to-face meeting with Trump.
Yes, it might have made their jobs as media personalities harder (and I do wonder the degree to which their companies initiated this versus the couple). But sticking with one’s principles is not an easy thing to do.
Obviously, like any moral or ethical decision it’s up to the people involved, but I think that we should question how far and under what conditions someone should be required to re-build bridges that they claimed they were burning for moral reasons.
James, if he were held to the standards of a normal president, he’d have been removed via 25th amendment on January 6th, then impeached and convicted before January 20th, and there’d have been a clamor to investigate his crimes from both sides of the aisle.
He’s being held to the standards of a normal tinpot dictator.
Literal fascist vs prospective fascist is a distinction without difference. Either makes the individual in question morally and temperamentally unfit for office, legitimately elected or not.
Hitler came to be chancellor legitimately. Ten years after his failed 1923 coup (sound familiar?) Hitler was legitimately appointed to the chancellery by the same president who had defeated him in 1932. His Nazi party then used their slim power in the Reichstag (sound familiar?) to marginalize opposition, curb civil liberties, and make Hitler a Fuhrer by 1934.
Hitler was a morally and temperamentally unfit wannabe-fascist before he was a morally and temperamentally unfit for literal fascist. The change from former to latter happened via legitimate processes — aided by normalization, fear, intimidation, complacency, economic distress, and political violence. Sound familiar?
Trump is a liar, bigot, criminal, crybaby, Epstein-bestie pedo, and fascist. Literal or budding, legitimate or illegitimate, who cares? He’s dangerous and unfit. His own VP once described him as “America’s Hitler.” Dozens of serious voices from his first White House warned of his authoritarian and fascistic tendencies. These warnings cannot be ignored.
There’s all sorts of reasons to believe Trump’s desired transition from wannabe to literal will be impeded:
Hitler was a spry 43 when appointed chancellor; Trump is elderly and fat, becoming the oldest president in history.
The US population is over 5x as big as 1930s Deutschland.
Republicans have to face voters again in two years.
The US economy is stronger than 1930s Germany; Republicans’ corporate benefactors won’t tolerate too much chaos.
We have rich and powerful blue state governments; liberals ought to show more respect for federalism and responsible use of states’ rights.
The opposition is more powerful and less fractured than the Nazis’ opponents, united under one megaparty; our two party system also deserves less scorn.
Etc etc.
So I do not blame Mika and Joe for going to Mar-a-Lago to take Trump’s temperature. Better to help the opposition keep tabs on the fascist, literal or aspiring.
@Modulo Myself:
I suspect that the Constitution is about to get a lot more flexible. Trump is legitimately prez only because the Federalist Supremes, in the CO case, decided the insurrection clause doesn’t really mean what it says. “Originalism”, like much of conservatism, is a game of let’s pretend.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I agree with all you’ve written in your comment, including this statement quoted, but I’ve got to say the “constitutionally qualified” part catches in the throat.
When, the Constitution states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…,” someone convicted by a jury of felonious fraud should in no way be qualified to hold that position in government. It is delegitimizing the duties of the Office on its face. That’s not even getting into the whole insurrection thing. The Supreme Court’s decision to thwart Colorado et al from keeping him off their ballots will prove a historical foolish missed opportunity.
It’s a hell of a thing explaining to the kids how a convicted felon can still be POTUS. It makes no sense in a moral universe and all the Constitutional arguments I’ve seen are no help at all in making sense of it for the universe we actually live in.
To follow up on my earlier comment, I think here’s the issue lies with the “Why wouldn’t we?”:
Beyond winning a second term, what has changed about Donald Trump that caused the reevaluation?
I can understand if she wants to make the argument that “winning the Presidency is enough.” That’s understandable and then she should own it.
But in terms of his rhetoric, his announced nominations to date, and expressed policy positions, it’s clear nothing else has changed. He’s going full Leory Jenkins on literally, not figuratively, enacting all the policies the pair claimed to oppose.
I think it’s good to cautiously reach out to people who have expressed an interest in change or are taking steps to change. And to give them a chance to show they can do things differently.
But once again, to go back to Trump’s favorite snake fable, if you know the dang thing is venomous, a liar, and will bite anything, you’ve been saying “it’s venomous, a liar, and will bite anything,” then shrugging your shoulders and saying “Why wouldn’t we?” is a terrible reason to pick up the damn snake.
Honestly, I’d much rather see them find cross-over voters and spend their time really trying to understand those people’s positions than normalizing Trump.
@Scott F.:
I understand that perspective, but the reality is (a) the Presidency is a political role, and (b) there is one political solution for determining someone to be Constitutionally unfit for office and to date, the impeachments have failed to make that determination.
I do not think you meant to set this up as a direct comparison, but these two things are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, some of us on the Left can reasonably say that we were correct pre-2016 when we said that there was a significant strain of fascism in the American Right. The dartboard may have had a picture of the wrong person (say, GWB) on it at times, but the general observation was true. Importantly, I do not think it was a common belief that it would happen via coup, but by the ballot box.
—
The Morning Joe couple’s perspective is naturally different from you as they consider themselves journalists. There are a lot of ways to tease out their role.
Now, if they thought they could get Trump to say something different to them than he would to another interviewer, or if they would use their access as a counterweight to Fox and Friends, then I do not think it would be kowtowing to cultivate a relationship with him. That would probably be better for all of us. At best, maybe they could try to use something he said in private, but the impact of that would be limited practically without a recording. And I doubt either of them would wire themselves up.
On the other hand, he appears to be so erratic that it is hard to interpret anything he says as definitive. Moreover, they pretty much have full access to anything he says publicly, so unless they truly think they could get something unique out of him, it probably is closer to normalizing.
And as you point out, assessing their job performance is less about journalism than ratings (entertainment). So, it is hard to trust their motives.
@Matt Bernius:
I don’t buy that they are normalizing Trump so much as trying to work him.
After his meeting with Joe and Mika, Trump put out a statement affirming his support for the free press and their vital role in US democracy.
Of course, it won’t be long before Steve Bannon speaks to Trump, and he is back to screaming about fake news media being the enemy within.
But here we see where both time and Trump’s narcissistic incompetence can work against the objectives of the crazies (Miller, Musk, Bannon etc.). Trump is notorious for altering his position to appease whoever last flattered him.
The opposition could do a lot worse than keeping the lame duck Trump White House preoccupied with spinning against Trump’s own positions while battling the its own CIA, Pentagon, and State Department.
Well, this is where the fascist/Hitler rubber meets the road. As we have seen since Trump’s win – and before, actually – there are a lot of people who talk the talk about Trump as Hitler or a fascist but don’t walk the walk. Actions speak louder than words. It’s easy to get online or write a column or get on the TV and talk about Trump as the fascist threat to democracy. It’s a bit more challenging to do something in the real world about it, and it’s clear that most people don’t believe their own rhetoric enough to be inconvenienced into action, much less actions on a scope or scale with an actual fascist threat.
@Mikey:
Opinions vary, but IMO normalizing Trump was never tried. When did Trump’s critics ever treat him as a “normal” President? What’s the alternative? Insurrection? Civil war?
How has the “resistance,” the tone-policing, and the rhetoric about fascism and Hitler worked out, exactly? All that talk and the result was Trump’s best showing in an election and a decisive, if narrow, win.
Politics will continue. Those opposed to Trump and his bad policies (me included) will use normal political means over the next four years – when there will be another election. And if Trump supports or stumbles into a good policy, I will support it, even if I don’t want him in the office and think he is and will be a bad President. People need to adjust to political reality, and I think most are doing that, including the media.
@Matt Bernius:
There’s the rub, Matt, with the Chief Executive of the country, responsible for enforcing the laws created by Congress, being above the law. It seems a fatal flaw in the system that there are only political remedies to such an untenable situation when legal remedies should be possible.
It’s just another example of guardrails failing to work against Trump.
And here I thought access journalism was a problem.
In what way, specifically, does it benefit their audience?
The rules of their game are simple. If Joe and Mika want to have access to Trump they had to do what they did. And I’m sure their management wanted them to maintain access. The evils of access journalism have been extensively discussed elsewhere.
It’s possible, I suppose, that Brzezinzki and Scarborough are trying to head off any retribution from Trump.
@Andy:
Was he ever a normal president? I still remember his administration rooting for Covid deaths in blue states.
There was also this little thing on 1/6.
Or do you think that could have been prevented if his critics had been a bit more civil?
I think a bigger point is that Trump has always been a part of America. That includes 1/6 and denying the 2020 election. He’s normal in the sense that everything is normal. Given that, the Democrats never had a chance. Responsible conservatives were supposed to keep a lid on the ugliness, and they failed to handle the situation. All they ended up with was the Iraq War, Romney, and cutting taxes. After 1/6, they were supposed to perform magic and exile him forever. It left the Democrats, a party build around the system, having to pretend that Trump was an outlier. They couldn’t criticize the system, any more than they could say the good factory jobs aren’t coming back, because that’s how capitalism works and we all are capitalists.
And they couldn’t point to decades of normal Americans supporting the terrorist state of the Jim Crow south and then there’s your Trump. He’s an American, and so are we. You can’t tell the truth about what normal people are capable of, because ‘normal’ means nothing. It means absolutely zilch. The reason the word ‘normalize’ is so pervasive is because it’s bullshit, and refers to nothing. We are going to hear it endlessly, and dumb people are going to debate how to normalize this or that or if we should, because the debate will exist because the deal is done beforehand.
@DK:
Over the next four years we’re about to see how “deep” the “deep state” really is.
(Or, was that just a contrived meme in service of gaining control of the levers of power? Depends on how congruent MAGA’s rhetoric is with its actual policy —- personally, I believe “smash and grab” has always been the goal, ideology be damned).
One other thing I want to mention – why do we still care about shows like Morning Joe? I looked up the figures, and recently, it has typically had less than a million total viewers and only about 70k in the 25-54 demographic – in a country of 330 million people. It is the top-rated morning show, which isn’t saying much because of the tiny numbers. Like the rest of cable news, the viewers are mostly Boomers watching morning TV out of habit or political hobbyists looking for liberal coverage either for confirmation bias or to get outraged. And the irony is, if they bring Trump on, it will be like the Howard Stern effect. Liberals will hate Joe and Mika, but they will probably still watch!
Anyway, IMO cable news is a side show that should not be given the prominence it gets from the rest of the media considering how few people actually watch. I don’t understand why the rest of us should care about this particular program, the hosts, or cable “news” generally.
@Andy: Is today April Fool’s Day? Just google Trump’s comments from his first term and the idea that he should be treated as a normal president is absurd. How many times did he encourage violence, condemn his political opponents or threaten revenge? Here’s some oldies but goodies:
1. Trump tells Virginians their Second Amendment in ‘under siege,’ protesters under stay-at-home order to ‘LIBERATE!’ amid pandemic
2. This is very normal: Frustrated with a record number of people seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2019, Trump at one point asked in a private meeting with close aides whether the U.S. could shoot migrants below the waist to slow them down.
3. “When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice,'” he said.
“When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head],” Trump continued, mimicking the motion. “Like, ‘Don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head.’ I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?’
Here’s his 2024 Father’s Day message: In all-caps, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, Sunday afternoon: “Happy Father’s Day to all, including the radical left degenerates that are rapidly bringing the United States of America into third world nation status with their many attempts at trying to influence our sacred court system into breaking to their very sick and dangerous will. We need strength and loyalty to our country, and this wonderful constitution. Everything will be on full display come November 5th, 2024 – the most important day in the history of our country. Make America Great Again!!!”
Let’s be civil and treat this guy as a normal president? We have to deal with him as president, but that’s it. And the Democrats aren’t stupid enough to trust him, because his word means less than zero. And they should make that clear any time his people propose a deal.
@drj:
He hasn’t acted like a normal President – that’s not the point. I’m disagreeing with the suggestion that he was treated like a normal President and that “didn’t work.” I think it’s the opposite case; he wasn’t treated like a normal President, and that barely worked in 2020 and failed miserably in 2024.
I think that election results show that nine years of volume 11 crisis resistance mode failed. The unending litany of “threat to democracy” rhetoric failed. The unending litany of “fascist/Hitler” failed. I’m skeptical of the notion and arguments that the problem was the volume on those was not turned up to 12. People ought to more seriously consider why those messages did not resonate and were not believed. I think the reason is obvious and demonstrated by people failing to act like Trump is a fascist. Morning Joe is only one example of many present and future examples where rhetoric and reality will diverge when it comes to people’s response to a 2nd Trump term.
Regardless, he was President, and he will soon be again. If one actually believes in democracy, then one is obligated to accept that reality. That doesn’t mean bending the knee, but it does mean that how one responds to a Trump administration matters. And if one believes that Trump is – in reality – a fascist/Hitler who will end democracy, then normal small-d democratic political resistance is insufficient to the task. Since I don’t believe Trump is a fascist or anything like Hitler or that he can/will end democracy, I will conduct myself through “normal” peaceful political means and not armed conflict, which is the only viable alternative and the only practical means to stopping an actual fascist in power.
@Lucysfootball:
For me, I think there are two choices – One is that you work and act through the normal peaceful political process at all levels of government. The alternative is non-peaceful means or operating outside the normal political process. Which will you choose? How should he be treated, exactly? What do you plan to do, exactly?
@drj:
No, but it changes the perspective. Trump has earned the right through our system to govern within the limits of his Constitutional and statutory power.
@Steven L. Taylor
We’re in full agreement here. But spouting off isn’t governance. I’ll certainly criticize policy proposals that I disagree with—of which I expect there will be many—and criticize as illegitimate any methods of obtaining them that don’t comport with our laws and norms.
@Kathy:
And I criticized Cabinet officers and Republican Senators who didn’t fulfill their duty in those instances. A majority of Americans have subsequently decided they prefer him to the alternative.
@Andy:
I didn’t say the failure was treating him like a normal President. I was referring to “holding him to the standards of a normal President” as what failed.
@Kathy put it more clearly than I did, but what she said is what I meant:
I’d take it back one impeachment, though. He should have been gone for what he tried to do to Ukraine.
@Andy: Not treating him as normal does not go hand-in-hand with armed insurrection, which of course this “normal” president helped instigate when he lost an election. Ultimately, you have to play the hand you are dealt. But operating within traditional parameters doesn’t not mean the NYT has to headline Trump’s “unconventional cabinet picks”. Especially when those picks could get people killed or unleash revenge prosecutions against his political enemies.
Do I think Trump is a fascist? Yes. Would he violate constitutional protections for people if he could? Definitely. He’s not normal, and should never be treated as such.
@Rob1:
Hehe. It isn’t really that “deep” pardon the pun. These are just normal American citizens whose careers are dedicated to maintaining the often-invisible security umbrella most Americans take for granted.
Voters have placed this beauracracy in the awkward position of trying to protect the US and our allies from rank rightwing incompetence — guarding against criminals, useful idiots, and hostile assets in the White House.
I have no doubt holdouts will pushback against being undermined, hopefully thwarting Putin’s wishes. But that’s not the nefarious plot of MAGA fever dreams. It’s de riguer to their oath. Outright defiance of official policy changes, no. But the essential duty isn’t changing without a knock-down, drag-out brawl.
@Andy:
We can stop caring about MSNBC shows like Morning Joe when we are also able to stop caring about Fox News shows like Fox & Friends. Misinformation decided the election results. How few people actually watch which media sources is part of the problem.
“Sure, Bob is a fascist who regularly threatens neighbors he hates, but he’s super nice to his dog and kids. We should invite him to the barbecue.”
I have to keep saying this, that the proper comparison isn’t Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
In the long history of humanity, those three are freakishly atypical, for the scale and scope of their totalitarianism.
What is a better comparison is the historical norm, those miserable Third World dictatorships we see in Latin America or Africa.
There aren’t extermination camps or killing fields, just the unending crushing corruption and bouts of brutality.
In that sense, Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China are perfect examples of what Trump envisions. In case anyone thinks this is hyperbole, stop for a moment and reflect on what life is like in those countries, right now.
If you were to go to Moscow or Beijing, what would you expect to see? Bodies in the street, goosestepping goons kicking in doors?
No. What you would see looks astonishingly normal. People driving to work, couples walking in the park, children playing.
Dictatorship is actually a pleasant place to live, if you keep your head down and don’t ask questions and don’t complain.
@James Joyner:
Close but no cigar. As of this morning, Trump’s popular vote percentage is 49.94%. According to Enten, Trump’s margin is currently the 44th slimmest out of 51 presidential elections since 1824.
Maybe he’ll get the majority of voters that has thus eluded him on his fourth try, as he is joking about running in 2028. But at least that “half of Americans” rhetorical gambit Republicans love is finally plausible.
@Chip Daniels: And in the case of Trump’s vision of the US, if you are white.
@DK: Maybe he’ll get the majority of voters that has dust eluded him on his fourth try, as he is joking about running in 2028.
I was going to say that given his apparent ongoing dementia that would be impossible, but they could just keep him mostly under wraps and release him for the occasional bill-signing or rally appearance. I do believe Vance will be POTUS sometime in 2026 at the latest. And will be the day-to-day president (or co-president with the Heritage folks) on January 2oth.
@Andy:
I will concede the first sentence is true, but should qualified.
Speech has, and always will be, an action. The legal distinction between speech and action is necessary for the preservation of individual rights. But once that distinction becomes a societal norm, it is an issue.
Nowadays individuals can broadcast speech widely with less effort than ever before throughout history. Of course, getting seen by a lot of people requires effort, an important caveat that mostly oes unexplored in these types of discussions. Until recently, that amount of reach was reserved for the very few.
Moreover, online speech can also spill over into the real world, often anonymously, to the point that it puts the speaker at risk of psychogical or physical harm. So it is unfair to act like speaking out is nothing. I think you recognize that, but it should be said more clearly.
You admit that it is challenging to take action. But the central point to take from the above is this: in a democratic society, speech is supposed to be the central means of political action. That is a good thing–it is supposed to reduce violence between opposing factions. It also creates a situation where views are generally presumed to be on equal footing, which sounds great but is more theory than praxis. Bemut and because:
a.) the government must be structured in a way that requires elected officials to be responsive to those who elected them for speech to have an impact;
b.) it requires long-term investment in education to close off the avenues open to bad faith actors willing to manipulate information to their own ends;
c.) the belief that we have to allow everyone to speak, even those with odious or non-democratic opinions, make both a and b significantly more challenging.
So, there is another problem beyond what action to take. There are significant asymmetries between the two opposing factions.
Compare the George Floyd protests to January 6. It seems to me that a far greater percentage of people on J6 participated in illegal and destructive activities than those in the former. No doubt many of those who entered the building did not go there intending to run wild. But once given the opportunity, they did. I don’t think the same can be said of most people at the racial protests. I think that public opinion probably is more sympathetic to the former overall, but it also likely reflects some underlying both sides attitude, despite most of the looting and destruction during the racial protests clearly being the work of opportunists. That’s a significant problem.
Last point: this isn’t the 60s. In some ways, it is safer–civil rights activists were much more likely to be physically harmed by vigilantes. And police were definitely more brutal. But those two issues still exist.
Additionally, having an arrest record now is far worse than having one in the mid-20th century. There are far more obstacles to take action than just the question of what to do, how to do it, and how to make it effective.
@Scott F.: Not to split hairs, and you know my views on all of this, but there are the qualifications for office (natural born, 35 years of age) and then there are the duties.
He is constitutionally qualified, and he won the election. But he is morally unqualified to fulfill the duties and it is a crying shame that enough voters didn’t see it that way.
@Andy:
Yup. Don’t deploy the term if you don’t mean it.
@James Joyner:
I think that gives him too much credit and leeway, as I try to explain in the post I wrote partially in response to this one.
I also think that the spouting off matters more than you do. And I would suggest that the spouting off directly led to January 6th, for example.
@Kingdaddy:
And Trump hates dogs and isn’t nice to all his kids.
@Chip Daniels: You aren’t wrong, if anything because the comparisons to the most gruesome examples require a similar scale of gruesome.. I do think, as I have written about extensively, that his rhetoric and stated policy goals very much cleave to Hitler. I think, too, his White/Christian Nationalism is fascistic.
I’ve said before that we should treat Nazis and white supremacists exactly as we treat pedophiles and “race realist” or Holocaust-minimizing rhetoric the way we treat “Just asking questions about age of consent”.
What surprises me is that this gets pushback.
Chip: “We shouldn’t compare Trump to Hitl-”
Trump’s border czar: “ANYONE CAUGHT HIDING IMMIGRANTS IN THEIR ATTIC WILL BE ARRESTED!”
@Steven L. Taylor:
Because he’s fascist. It’s not controversial to most educated and aware people anymore, unless they’re being sanguine, willfully obtuse, or reflexively contrarion for contrarionism’s sake. At this point, you have to close your eyes and plug your eyes to keep denying the obvious. To wit:
As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator (NY Times)
Is John Kelly a resist-lib? No, he’s a former general and a conservative Republican who lasted longer than any of Trump’s other chiefs-of-staff. To this day, Kelly still says he agrees with many of Trump’s policy positions. Yet Kelly’s assessment of Trump was echoed by dozens of his own staffers and officials.
The hair-splitting over defining Trump’s fascism is loony. If someone admits obsessive sexual attraction to children, they’re a pedophile whether or not they’ve yet acted on it. Constrained and guardrailed or not, a fascist is still a fascist.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Not according to the CO Supreme Court, but they were overruled by the partisan SCOTUS.
@Lucysfootball:
So again, how exactly should he be treated differently beyond NYT headlines and media coverage generally?
@Scott F.:
Well, I don’t care about Fox either. Their viewership is not much bigger than MSNBC (tiny in the grand scheme of things), and their demographics (old political hobbyists) are the same. My view is that people ought to stop signal-boosting them. Liberals constantly whining about Fox News and making them this bete noir doesn’t reduce Fox influence – quite the opposite. Same with the right-wing obsession with MSNBC and, for reasons I don’t understand, The View.
@Kurtz:
I do recognize that, and speaking out isn’t nothing. I agree with your follow-on points that it’s essential. But the manner and forum matter a great deal. It seems to me a lot of the speaking is happening in “safe” forums, and amounts to in-group signaling and tone-policing. If all people do is spend hours commenting online, typically with people who already completely or mostly agree, then I consider that doing not much at all. And if the threat is actual fascism, then it is grossly insufficient. If the threat is actually fascism, then speech must be backed up by action, the preparation for violence and, if necessary, violent action itself.
I don’t think there are far more obstacles at all, quite the opposite. Technology has given us way more organizing options than in the 60’s. I think the truth is that most people are lazy (and I have a big lazy streak), and it’s easier to sit on one’s laptop in one’s home and get some catharsis or venting online, or send some money to some group than it is for people to do basic things like write their representative, join a civic group, spend time organizing, or put on a coat and show up to someone else’s organizing effort. I spend time doing a lot of that (except the organizing), but if I’m honest, I’m sure I spend more time reading and commenting here at OTB and other blogs. I also realize that my enjoyment of online debate and discussion is ultimately not effective from the standpoint to mobilizing or achieving change.
That’s part of the reason why I try to choose my rhetoric carefully (not always succeeding) so that I can match what I say to what I actually do in RL. “Fascism” is a word that gets thrown around a lot, including before Trump, and it seems clear to me that despite what people may claim, it’s used as a rhetorical cudgel and not meant literally because the vast majority of people are not acting or behaving as if they believe Trump is actually a fascist and that democracy is ending.
There’s also hypocrisy in expecting the hosts of some irrelevant morning show to be part of the vanguard in the resistance and demanding they not accept the reality of Trump winning and what it means for their business and livelihood. Most of the critics are people who have not taken any commensurate risk to their livelihood in their stated opposition to Trump. This is why Liz Cheney deserves respect – she was willing to make real sacrifices for her principles and beliefs – it’s a hard thing for anyone to throw away a career like that, and she did it. The hard reality is that very few people are willing to do that, despite what they claim, and the dissonance between words and action is as plain as day.
@Andy:
I can’t respond right this sec.
Two things:
1.) I screwed up. The “far more obstacles” line should have been a different paragraph. I only intended the arrest record comparison to the 60s, and the potential for direct, in-person violence.
But, I am thinking now.
2.) We are probably pretty close on this. But I wanted to get your thoughts and clarify my own rather than take a different position.
Looking forward to reading your response later.
@DK:
Then why is it that people are not acting like he’s a fascist?
Let me put it this way. If I thought Trump was a fascist, I would not be commenting on blogs anymore. I would be preparing for war or insurgency and organizing with like-minded people and making the necessary preparations. I would send my family out of the country. I would be spending most of my time on that effort. I wouldn’t be complaining about the media for the umpteenth time or wasting time writing passive-aggressive blog comments about how problematic contrarians are.
We know what John Kelly said, the more important thing is what is he doing? Is he preparing for active opposition to fascism or enjoying retirement? (rhetorical question – I have no idea what Kelly is up to) Saying someone is a fascist is not the same thing as acting as if someone is a fascist, and what’s “obvious” to me is the extent to which actions do not match words when it comes to rhetoric about Trump.
@DK:
And this is the real issue, in my view.
For years many Americans, including Trump supporters, have assumed that our Constitution and governing norms would prevent conversion of our democracy to a fascist–or other–autocratic state. And for Trump supporters, they think they can have their cake (immigration control, Christian influence in schools, control of open expression of internal gender and sexual preferences, etc.) and eat it too (reliance upon election of leaders, one of the least corrupt national governments in the world, freedom from fear that your could be reported by your neighbors for your opinion, etc.)
In this forum, and in the press, I have heard reference to “the next election,” as though it is still a given then we will have free and open elections in the future.
My fear is that we are experiencing a paradigm shift and few people realize it. Not just Trump, but also the cabal around him, are attempting to execute a decapitation strike to assume control of the military and the tools necessary to gain control of the economy to serve their purposes.
Many of us in the days ahead will be asking how a decision might compromise our integrity but also ensure our comfort and, perhaps, survival. Joe and Mika made a very public decision, and it is impossible at this point to divine their true intentions. Military, law enforcement, elected leaders, religious leaders, and each and every citizen will be asked to make similar decisions.
I have grieved so much since Trump was elected over the changes in country. At first it was the loss of shared American identity. But now it’s grief that Americans don’t appreciate their country’s history and that–despite its flaws–made continual progress in keeping them safe from the worst cruelties of life.
Misinformation did drive the election, but neither Morning Joe or Fox and Friends were primary vectors. Just look at how many people watch those shows, versus how many voters there were.
No, I think the primary vectors were social media ads delivered to people’s phones, in between notes from friends, fun videos, and weather reports. You know, it makes it all look so much more credible. It comes from your phone, which is now a source of joy and connection to you.
And on top of that those ads were often tailored to look like they were coming from a source you trusted, and because social media knows so much about what you like, they were able to target you with just the stuff that looks like someone *you* would trust, and your neighbors got a whole different set of messages.
This is documented. It’s not a conspiracy theory. There was a very big movement in the polls over the last couple weeks before the election. Unhappiness with inflation does not explain that movement. Maybe this effort, funded by Musk, does.
Meanwhile, I don’t really care about Morning Joe which I have never watched and probably never will. It does not punch very hard in the media arena. Not very hard at all.
@Andy:
Good for you.
But – looking at what historically happened in countries that went fascist – this is simply not what most people do.
In fact, most people (at least those that didn’t outright support a fascist dictatorship) tended to find excuses so as to deny the seriousness of what was happening right in front of their eyes.
Perhaps there is a lesson there.
@Skookum:
You’re right, it’s not a given. Trump, who is clearly fascistic, is about to return to the presidency with fewer guardrails around him in round two. So it is not irrational to worry, or to warn against complacency. Vigilance and toughness are required. That said, full-blown panic is premature.
Again, there are reasons to believe subjugating a vast, wealthy, sprawling republic with far flung population centers might prove impossibly difficult. The USA c. 2024 is not 1950s China or Russia, or 1930s Germany. And 78-year-old obese and deteriorating incompetent Donald is not 43-year-old Adolf, despite his best efforts. Time is not on his side.
@Chip Daniels: Back in 2016, Trevor Noah did a segment on why Trump is like an African dictator.
@Andy:
So? Nobody died and appointed you arbiter of how folks should prepare for Trump’s fascistic proclivities. Right now, people are watching and waiting with cautious vigilance, which is entirely appropriate.
Self-absorbed comments about I would do this and I would do that and I wouldn’t do the other and I I I aren’t particularly relevant in a country of 350 million people with different needs and capacities. People will respond how they need to, if and when they need to.
But they don’t need you to sign-off on their decisions. Unlike you, John Kelly worked daily with Trump in the White House. He is not seeking your approval. (We don’t know what Kelly is and isn’t doing, but I would not be surprised if he hasn’t already consulted with an attorney; reportedly, some military folk are already doing so.)
@gVOR10: Fair point.
@Andy: Do you agree that he is a reactionary with authoritarian tendencies who has already seen fit to use violence for his own political gain who uses blatant us vs. them rhetoric and who seems more concerned about loyalty to him than to the government he will soon lead?
@Steven L. Taylor: To be clear, I agree with you that Trump is constitutionally qualified, so I don’t think you’re splitting hairs with me. I’m merely responding to a sad truth – a convicted felon, one who has also been indicted by credible grand jury processes of more serious charges, is now the legitimate and constitutionally qualified President of the United States. That simply ain’t right.
In my opinion (and I recognize my concerns are without remedy), we keep talking about a potential constitutional crisis based on what Trump might do once back in office and we’ve missed the fact that the constitutional crisis already came to pass when he was able to run for office again.
Of course, the heart of that crisis was Republican Senators unwilling to convict Trump on either of his impeachments, but even after that all other legal actions failed. You had eminent legal minds like Judge Luttig making the legal argument that he should be disqualified and these arguments were never fully considered in a courtroom. There are insufficient controls in our electoral system that have allowed this.
I believe it never should have come to the voters to decide. And I say that believing up to about noon on November 5th that the voters were up to making the right decision. But, apparently, if you offer chocolate lava cake laced with strychnine on the menu, especially if you have an information ecosystem that will downplay the dangers of the strychnine and oversell the simple pleasure of the chocolate lava, then some people are going to order the cake over another dessert choice, simply because they figure if it’s on the menu it can’t be that bad. This is the fatal flaw in our electoral system. Whatever happens in Trump’s second term is a side-effect.
@Andy:
Which is exactly what I am doing.
I believe Trump is going to do everything he says.
I believe the Supreme Court has given him carte blanche to do what he wishes.
I believe too many Americans want a fascist because the person will get rid of the “other”, regardless of the cost.
I believe families are doing to be destroyed.
I believe many American citizens will end up in a Kafkaesque nightmare where they will be deported, and will not be able to get back into the country.
I believe Trump is going to instill tariffs and wreck the economy, especially farmers (see migrant crackdown in addition to tariffs), causing massive spikes in costs and a scarcity of resources.
I believe nothing good is coming over the next two years.
I believe the GOP is incapable of stopping him, and, frankly, have no desire to stop him (see, Roy, Chip, and Gaetz, Matt, and Taylor-Greene, Marjorie, and Johnson, Mike, and Rubio, Marco, and Cruz, Ted.)
Oh, sure Susan Collins will be shocked, and Lisa Murkowski will protest, but the rest will fall in line. No one will stop him. And, at a tipping point, it will be too late. All he people who complained about wokeness will suddenly realize that their problems weren’t the result of brown people or trans people or liberal elites or college-educated suburban voters or drag queens or immigrants.. But rather than look in the mirror at their own shitty choices, they’ll find another way to blame the Democrats and brown people, and trans people, and wokeness, and liberal elites.
So I’ve purchased a property out the country. I’ve gotten dual citizenship. I am downsizing assets, and am actively looking for jobs outside of the USA.
I’m not leaving… yet. But you can bet your ass I’m ready. My wife and I and our dogs can be out of the country safely in 24 hours. We have a plan in place.
And, Andy… I find your comment naive as f**k.
@Jay L Gischer:
I agree that cable news wasn’t the primary vector for the misinformation, but it is a part of what James Fallows describes as “the death-cloud of misinformation, ignorance, lies, myths, fears, stereotypes… or any other terms to describe the gulf between “reality” as human beings have evolved to understand it, and the artificial reality playing out in the minds of citizens.”
The post-truth world we live in now is a massive problem for the US in this moment. As Steven has documented, Unreality is a key element of the establishment of a fascist state and our country now going to have the face the consequences of the successful propagation of Unreality by the GOP. The fact that there are so many players in the information ecosystem (traditional media, social media, podcasting, propaganda networks, etc.) makes the problem so much harder to address and therefore much more pernicious to society.
@Steven L. Taylor:
This! Megan Kelly criticizing others as faux journalists has a pot, meet kettle quality.
@DK:
True. But then there’s JD.
@Andy:
Dude, I know I’ll never get through the Secret Service protection, and I’ve never fired a gun in my life. Complaining on the internet is all I’ve got right now.
@drj:
Yes, the lesson is that people should act in accordance to their honest beliefs.
@DK:
As always, I speak only for myself, and contrary to your suggestion, I am not trying to be the arbiter of how folks should prepare. The point was to highlight that I take fascism very seriously, as a very serious threat, and to explain just how seriously I would take it but explaining what I would actually do.
My confusion stems from my observation that the rhetoric about Trump’s fascist threat from his worst critics is not matched by a similar seriousness in terms of actions and behavior.
This isn’t bullshit; I’m genuinely interested in what people who think Trump is a fascist genuinely believe is in the bounds of threat-appropriate reactions to his Presidency, both in general and for them specifically. I cannot read minds, only what people write, and there is precious little on that question here (despite my asking multiple times) beyond the usual media criticism and hand-wavy ideas about not treating Trump as a “normal” President.
I’ve given plenty of opportunity for people to express their own views on what they think should be done and what they would do to counter the fascist threat they voice. I have also asked the question directly, and the response has primarily been dodging it, or handwaving about not treating Trump as “normal” without explaining what that means.
To put it another way, if a fascist getting elected isn’t enough to get people to prepare for insurrection, civil war, and use “any means necessary” to protect the country and democracy from the fascist, then what is? On the scale of threats, “fascism” is basically at the top IMO.
I’ve given my view plainly – I plan to oppose Trump as a bad and potentially dangerous President using normal, non-violent political means. If I thought he was a fascist, I would act differently. How about you? How about everyone else here?
@Steven L. Taylor:
As I’ve previously noted, I think he is an authoritarian driven primarily by ego and narcissism. Yes, everything is about him, and that – IMO – is the key to understanding Trump. He doesn’t have an ideological vision of controlling society under the power of a centralized state (one of the core principles of fascism), quite the opposite.
Trump, IMO, has no use for such ideological tenets or organizing principles – rather, he does what he thinks benefits him personally and throws shit against the wall and sees what sticks. Part of the problem with assessing Trump is that he has said so many contradictory and outrageous things that it’s impossible to know which he will act on and to what extent. In my view, that is entirely intentional on his part, and it gives him the freedom to act in his own interest. He says so much BS all the time that tactical reneging doesn’t carry much, if any, cost with his supporters while causing his opponents to constantly freak.
That kind of person is not, IMO, a fascist. You’ve already read my long response to your post on fascism a few weeks ago, so that’s the rest of the story IMO, I won’t repeat it here.
That’s not to say that Trump is a “normal” politician or that he isn’t a danger to the rule of law and US institutions – he most definitely is. People driven by ego and narcissism to the extent that Trump is are not compatible with public service like the Presidency IMO. But that is a much different problem set and solution set than an actual fascist.
If any of that changes, and Trump does emerge as an actual fascist, then you will see me stop posting online because I’ll be busy with other things.
@EddieInCA:
Given that you spent a lot of time and effort working to get Harris elected and your previous comments, I’m not surprised by any of this.
I know some others in my circle who believe and act as you do, including some without money or resources or hope who plan to wait for Trump’s Gestapo to show up and then die fighting them.
Although I think they are mistaken, I can’t criticize their convictions. It’s always a good idea to hedge against the worst case and uncertainty. My family could leave in 24 hours if that’s what it came to (I have a brother in Germany and many friends overseas), but I would most likely be staying behind.
The future, as they say, is uncertain. All I can say to you is that I think (and hope) that I am right and you are wrong, and that we’ll soon enough be debating about the 2028 election.
@Gustopher:
There is a vast spectrum of things to do between getting through the secret service protection at one extreme and complaining on the internet on the other.
@Andy:
Humor me.
What do you disagree with below? Or, more succinctly, which of these do you think won’t happen?
@Mikey: I agree. Sadly, Congress, a special prosecutor, a Department of Justice, and a Supreme Court disagreed? What now? (And how does it feel to be on the wrong side of “justice denied” street?)
@gVOR10:
Does JD Vance seem like a true believer? Vance is an opportunistic weasel, but I don’t believe he’d try to govern like a fascist, do you? For one, he knows he lacks the charisma to incite a Reichstag Fire or a Jan. 6 terror attack. Nobody is charging over the bridge for JD Vance.
But Trump is authoritarian and will attempt to govern like a fascist. As noted by John Kelly and others who worked side-by-side with him in the West Wing, Trump doesn’t believe presidential power is constrained at all. Donald has no respect for the Constitution or rule of law and believes he should be a dictator doing whatever he pleases. So that is what he’ll try to do.
It seems unlikely the various systemic layers of official and unofficial guardrails nationwide will all break. But damage can be done as those rails bend, pressured by the MAGA regime’s fascism (and amorality, corruption, ignorance, and incompetence).
@Scott F.: “death-cloud of misinformation” is a great turn of phrase.
@EddieInCA:
Happy to humor you:
In the intel community we had an old rule-of-thumb in the form of an equation:
Threat=Intent+Capability.
As a real-world example, take Israel. Israel’s enemies have a clear and incontrovertible intent to kill Jews and destroy Israel. We are not worried (too much) about that happening because they lack the capability to destroy Israel.
Back to Trump, I think we have to use the same analysis if we are going to talk about Trump as a threat.
On the intent side, there’s what he’s said he will do, which speaks to intent. But it’s also the case that Trump has flip-flopped and said contradictory things. But let’s leave that aside and just assume for the sake of argument that the worst interpretations of Trump’s worst comments are what he actually wants to do.
What about the capabilities? This is where, I think, I depart from most people here who, IMO, do assume the worst when it comes to intent. When you say Trump is “going to do everything he says” that presumes he can do everything he says.
I don’t think that is the case at all.
Some of the things Trump says he wants to do haven’t been adjudicated by the SCOTUS, so no, disagree. Furthermore, I do not agree with the view that the so-called conservative majority on the Court will do anything Trump wants, as I’ve heard many people allege.
Disagree. Most Americans don’t pay attention to politics and vote on economics and vibes. The groups that Trump is reportedly “othering” demonstrably shifted in his direction this last election.
Secondly, Trump is not, IMO, an ideologue who believes in things “regardless of the cost.” As an extreme egotistical narcissist, he is and will be affected and influenced by perceptions and is not the kind of person who will die in a bunker.
That is probably true, although the extent is yet to be determined. As an aside, if people are looking for something positive to do or contribute that is between extreme kinetic options and complaining on the internet, this is a good one to consider.
Very doubtful. Trump is not a King and cannot unilaterally deport US citizens.
It’s possible, but I don’t think he will actually do it. There will be some tariffs, but he’ll be talked out of most of them. Maybe later I’ll have time to explain the reasons I think this, but I don’t have time now.
Only two years, not four?
I think the next four years are very likely going to be a shit show. Again, fortunately, we elect Presidents and not Kings. America has endured worse. We’ll have elections in 2026 and 2028.
As a collective, no, the GoP won’t stop him. Fortunately, we don’t live in a single-party state that controls all levers of power. It’s time to learn to love all the things that liberals have hated over the years – federalism and independent state authority. Separation of powers. “Undemocratic” checks on unilateral authority. The end of Chevron deference.
Too late for what? What do you foresee happening exactly?
Maybe so. But at the same time, Democrats have to own up to the fact that they have lost twice to the worst candidate in modern American history, and perhaps they ought to do some soul searching about why decisive numbers of American voters thought Trump was the less-bad option. If the first instinct is to blame voters for being stupid, then one has lost the plot. Voters have always been stupid, that is not a valid excuse.
@Andy:
Thank you. If I’m wrong, no harm, no foul.
If you’re wrong, a whole lot of people will die. That’s the simple fact.
I’ve studied history too much to buy into your arguments. You, like many Americans think it can’t happen here. And I’m not talking about 1930’s Germany. Democracy is in decline globally. That’s a fact, not feels or vibes. Why do American’s think the country can’t become like Venezuela, or the Philippines, or worse? It 100% can happen here, and it’s naive to think otherwise. And I think it’s going to happen here. When the populace is fine voting for someone so obviously unfit to lead, the population will be willing to accept almost anything. That’s what’s happened historically.
Democratic decline a global phenomenon, even in wealthy nations.
I highlighted the parts that might catch your interest, and show how naive you’re being.
As to what I believe is going to happen, I believe he’s going to declare a national emergency and use the US Military against the civilian population. I believe most of the GOP will go along with it. I believe people like you will caterwaul that he can’t do that, but it will be too late by then. I believe there are no institutions that will restrain him.
So good luck. I’ll be out of the country long before then.
@Skookum:
I suspect that this turn of phrasing comes from the reality that we (all, 100% of us) are really, really bad a predicting the future and have to believe, for now at least, that the ship that is the state will turn relatively slowly. Beyond that, if there’s not going to be a “next election,” the scope of the argument changes to Andy’s or Chip’s point–whether you will decide to make the best of living in an autocracy or you will join a rebellion and be willing to “burn the sucka to the ground,” kill your neighbors, “fight [and possibly die] for a principal they’ve long ago forgotten” and…
I’ll let you fill in with your own thoughts.
@Andy:
I hope you’re right.
You didn’t say what you mean by that. A lot of people bring up the fact that much of what the felon wants to do is illegal. Such as deporting people without a court hearing. Maybe so, but:
1) with control of Congress, a lot can be made legal. even in the unlikely case the Leo court strikes some of it down as unconstitutional, how long will that take?
2) If the felon orders immigrants rounded up, stuffed into cargo planes, and the military does this and flies them to Mexico or Venezuela, what you do about the blatant law breaking? “Cease quoting laws to those of us holding swords.”
There’s a great deal more, like impounding funds for specific programs, or even just part of the funds so the program won’t be used by people he doesn’t like.
He may not have the legal capability, true he may not need it. He wills surely operate on the latter basis.
@EddieInCA:
My inclination is to emphasize the difference between “can” and “will.” It absolutely can happen anywhere. I’ll have a better impression of “going to” after the cabinet and bureaucracy hearings and the 2026 election. Either way though, I’m in the cohort Chip has discussed here and several times before for whom the type of government affects them at what I will call, in good economic parlance, the margins. While I lived in Korea, I was living under the circumstance of my residency being bound to a specific employer. During my first visa, my passport was seized by the Department of Labor because my employer had hired me illegally. That issue was eventually ironed out–2 0r 3 months later-and I went on to live happily in Korea with the understanding that if my employer decided not to keep me on, I had ~30 days to find a new employer or exit the country.
Moral of the story, I’ve lived with uncertainty and, mostly, its terror has, in my experience, been greatly exaggerated. I thrived in Korea; I will be able to handle whatever the new order throws at me, assuming a new one arrives (and this election isn’t just a temporary shit show). And in my case, this situation is very fortunate because I have neither the desire nor the resources to “escape” the coming totalitarian juggernaut. Age and mediocre health make me unlikely to be useful as a resistance
cosplayerfighter. For better or worse, I’m stuck here with clowns to the left and jokers to the right, so I need to figure out how to make this work. I’m betting that I can. I’ve done it before.ETA: Whatever way this thing goes, I wish you and others who feel that they need to leave well. I hope you will all find success and happiness wherever you land.
When Democrats and the media have spent decades calling every Republican POTUS candidate since and including Barry Goldwater Nazis, facists, etc etc maybe, juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe it has become static, background noise and nobody is listening to the left’s hysteria anymore. Reagan, Bush the Elder, GWB, McCain, Romney ALL were given the “fascist” label, but NOW it’s totally legit???? Meh….there’s only so many times you can crank the fascist dial to eleven before people start tuning out. Unfortunately, a medical emergency with my sister led me to be outside my precinct on election day, and was unable to vote….fortunately, I live in Missouri and wasn’t concerned…I would have voted for Trump, and the non-stop “fascist” bullshit is a big reason why…it’s less about Trump from my perspective than it is about the unhinged reaction to him. I became dug in as a Trump supporter over that BS Russian collusion hoax, and see the likes of Bob Mueller, James Comey, Marc Elias, etc and a weaponized Dept of Injustice to be considerably more fascistic…(for the record, I was an “Anyone but Hillary” voter in ’16, and voted for Gary Johnson because he had at least been elected governor of NM….yes, I’m STILL angry about that collusion scam) But hey, I’ll throw one more rhetorical grenade, that the Do(I)J is only marginally better than the Gehime Staatzpolizei, aka the Gestapo (and no, I don’t believe that, but that’s on the same rhetorical par with the current hysteria)
Stuff like Biden’s comment speaking to an almost 100% African American audience when Romney was running (I think it was Romney and not McCain) that Romney was going to “throw ya all back in chains!!!!!” wasn’t helpful, and neither is the current overdone fascist talk….(off the top of my head, the only GOP POTUS candidate since Goldwater to not get the media “FASCIST!!!11!!!!” treatment was Gerald Ford, though I was only 8 in 1976 and maybe missed one…
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/opinion/left-nazi-comparisons-don-float/TPQbcxrHBRfi1v6xk1AEnJ/
@rondo1342: Since you talk about the weaponization of DOJ against Trump, what are your thoughts on E Jean Carroll’s civil case against Trump? No involvement from DOJ (except to try to get him off by saying his defamatory comments were part of his official duties.). Are you okay with his overall behavior? Part of his defense was “she’s not my type”. Who says that about a rape allegation? His actual comments and behavior during the trial should be disqualifying for any job, much less POTUS. The verdict was unanimous and took less than three hours. Read the attached Wikipedia article, he lied repeatedly, then when the original verdict came in he claimed that it was rigged, and he didn’t even know her. This is my favorite:
On June 1, Kaplan denied a Trump ally’s request to dismiss the case on the basis that Trump was being persecuted for being a white Christian.
And you are happy that an adjudicated rapist is president?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump
@rondo1342: Hi Rondo,
Nice to meet you. Which of our usual, now banned, trolls are you?
@wr:
I was reading this blog since the git-go, when I was in Korea with the USAF when it was created back in ’03. It has long since descended into an echo chamber, where countering opinions are not tolerated. I still pop by periodically, mostly for laughs, see what panic is afflicting everyone….this is the first time I’ve commented in probably a good 8-10 years, usually on Second Amendment issues, I’ll never let a good 2A discussion pass. I’ve been a life-long reader of history in my 56+ trips around the Sun, and Trump is NOT a fascist, despite the fevered imaginations in the collective malarial swamp here.
@Lucysfootball:
From wiki: “Both cases were related to Carroll’s accusation from mid-2019 (while Trump was in office) that he sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996.”
1995, or 1996….yeah, that’s credible *rolls eyes*. I would think, if a woman is sexually assaulted, she would know to the minute of when the attack happened….that kind of event has a way of searing itself into the the mind. But it’s the same tired crap Anita Hill and Christine Blasey-Ford ran out against Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. The timing in all these cases are……interesting. Next you’ll tell me the UVA frat rape crap that Rolling Stone made up out of whole cloth 7-8 years or so ago was real…..calls of fascism, sexual harassment decades earlier, yah tell me another one. All of these lawfare cases are specious bullshit, and likely will all be reversed by higher courts outside of corrupt NYC and Atlanta. The allegations DA Bragg allegedly happened years ago; if they were the serious crimes alleged (hint: they aren’t, basically bookkeeping stuff) he should have been charged way earlier. It was only when he declared he would run for POTUS again that this crap bubbled up.
@wr:
Didn’t think of this in my first reply, but I’m totally unsurprised you talk of banning “trolls”…..is a “troll” a purveyor of “misinformation” or “disinformation” or “whatever speech doesn’t fit the narrative?” I’m confused! I need a scorecard to keep up. It’s the host’s site, they can ban anyone for whatever reason, they’re paying for it…..just doesn’t seem very free speech friendly….don’t worry, it’ll probably be another 10 years or so before I comment again, so sleep well knowing that doubleplusungood speech won’t defile your eyes anytime soon….
@rondo1342: So you think if a woman doesn’t report a rape to the police at the time of the rape she’s making it up? Maybe you should read up on how rape allegations were treated thirty years ago, especially when they were made against powerful people. She told friends at the time. Trump was caught on tape bragging about sexual assaulting women. More than two dozen women have come forward saying he sexually assaulted them. But everything is a lie, right. Do you think the Access Hollywood tape was fabricated? Or do you think it is normal to brag about sexually assaulting women? Maybe you think it’s a compliment.
So the DOJ is out to get Trump, civil judges are out to get Trump, the government was out to get him when he wouldn’t return classified documents, the whole world is out to get him. When he stole from his own charity and agreed to a $2 million fine and to shut down the charity they were out to get him.
@rondo1342: Honest question–Did you ever vote for a Democrat because of all the Right Wing “Communist! Socialist!” bullshit?
@Lucysfootball:
Yes, I do think actions should be taken immediately on a sexual assault/rape case. She could be some low-level nobody, and the accused a man of power. But dammit, bring it up ASAP….this 30 year old crap reeks of political opportunism. If it wasn’t a big deal 30 years ago, it isn’t now. Spare me the bullshit about how she was “intimidated”. If it was an actual righteous sexual assault/rape, bring it up immediately. Otherwise, 25-30 year old accusations are crap.
@rondo1342:
And yes, I don’t think women should have an endless, no statute of limitations, to wheel out a 30 year old sexual assault claim when it’s politically convenient. Do it when it happens, or STFU
@Jim Brown 32:
I actually voted for the Democrat candidate for Missouri governor in ’16, Chris Coster. The 2016 elections was weird in that the Democrat candidate was a former Republican and the Republican candidate was a former Democrat. The Democrat candidate had a better record on the Second Amendment than the Republican candidate, that’s why I voted for him
@rondo1342:
He lost, but I still voted for him
@EddieInCA:
I don’t think I’m being naive at all, I’m looking at the whole picture and not extrapolating from worst-case scenarios and then assigning those a high probability.
Is Trump good for democracy? No, I don’t think he is. But good for democracy is not a binary choice; there are degrees that range from the normal kinds of Executive power grabs that occur in almost every administration all the way to full-stop totalitarianism (which is how most normal people define fascism). Trump, in my view, is much closer to the former than the latter, for reasons I’ve explained in length in multiple posts. That doesn’t make Trump a good or acceptable person or President, it just means he’s not the Hitler-like caricature that so many have (unsuccessfully) painted him as. And it’s clear that most people (excepting you, it seems), don’t actually believe their own fasicsm rhetoric because they are not doing anything different or behaving differently and – when asked – won’t answer or will elide about Trump should be treated differently. Revealed preferences speak volumes!
Because America is a different country from those countries. The former two countries have never had stable governing institutions, do not have our system of federalism that limited the de jure and de facto power of the central government, along with many other factors.
Just for Venezuela, in the 20th and 21st centuries, I count a total of seven coups or coup attempts. They have a long record of weak governance, weak institutions, extreme violence and political strife, extreme corruption, etc. America? Low levels of all of those things – a strong economy, low levels of political violence (Amazing considering we elected a fascist President!) and normal criminal violence, and a largely stable society of normies who don’t obsess about politics and keep on trucking with their bourgeois goals and lifestyle. The argument that America is on the cusp of becoming like Venezuela is bonkers IMO. That you and so many others believe that the US is just as weak as those countries just makes me shake my head.
@Kathy:
The point is that Presidents are not Kings. Presidential candidates ALWAYS promise things that they have no actual power to deliver – Trump is exception in terms of scale and the kinds of crazy promises he makes. But promising more and crazier things doesn’t mean that Trump will magically be able to do any of them, or do them to the extent he may want or his critics may fear.
Trump can’t magically deport people without due process. In his first term, he couldn’t even get the wall he promised built. Much of his agenda was blocked or severely delayed by the courts. His promise to purge the civil service and make it loyal to him is going to be practically very difficult to do, albeit the attempt will likely have substantial negative effects. I don’t think people have sufficient appreciation for the limits of authority for the office of the President, and the very real obstacles that every President faces in trying to enact their agenda.
I hope this serves as a wake-up call for those on the progressive side who have long supported increasing the power and authority of the federal government and the Presidency. Some here in the comments have even called for the end of all independence for states and state governments. I have consistently argued against these points as naive for reasons that should now be obvious. I am certainly glad the efforts to increase the de facto authority of the Executive and federal government by many of the people who now call Trump a fascist were not successful.
The people who wrote our Constitutions did not understand many things and could not anticipate the societal and technological changes that would come in the future. But one thing they understood was tyranny, and they designed a system that may greatly annoy modern technocrats, but it’s a system intended first and foremost to prevent actual fascism, and on that score, it has an excellent track record, despite the growth of Executive power over recent decades.